I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, trumpt, and I know they're genuine. But from my perspective, it is the same reasoning that was used to justify voting for Bush. I believed it back then and voted for him. I held my nose and voted for him because that's what a good little Republican should do.

I stand before you a registered Republican (only because that's how my vote for Ron Paul in the primaries will count in my state) who is ashamed to be a registered Republican and ashamed that I compromised my own standards to vote for someone I didn't truly believe would be a good president.

In retrospect, I should have stuck to my principles. I sincerely believe that things couldn't possibly have turned out worse than they have even if John Kerry had won. The same kinds of people would have been pulling the strings, regardless. The result would be the same: bigger government, failing economy, and a nation in decline.

Now SDW2001 can compare me to Mark Levin (who is the furthest thing from a libertarian), call me "positively delusional" and sanctimonious, and tell me what I really think instead of listen to what I am saying and try to understand (all of which only serve to further alienate me from what I perceive to be a corrupt and broken Republican party). But at the end of the day, when I vote for the candidate I believe in my heart will do the best job as president - regardless of political party or ability to win, I will be able to look myself in the eye and know that I truly voted my conscience.

And when the country further deteriorates in spite of the reassurances that "this time it will be different", it will not be me who will be regretting my choice.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, trumpt, and I know they're genuine. But from my perspective, it is the same reasoning that was used to justify voting for Bush. I believed it back then and voted for him. I held my nose and voted for him because that's what a good little Republican should do.

Whether it was what a good little Republican should do, it was better than Gore.

Quote:

I stand before you a registered Republican (only because that's how my vote for Ron Paul in the primaries will count in my state) who is ashamed to be a registered Republican and ashamed that I compromised my own standards to vote for someone I didn't truly believe would be a good president.

Yet this shows how you have to work within the system to change it sometimes. You have to register Republican to vote for Paul. Why not simply register as Libertarian and vote to help determine their presidential nominee? Ask why Paul himself sits within the big tent rather than leave it? Clearly he is strongly at odds with multiple positions within the Republican Party yet he feels he can affect more change from within than from outside.

Quote:

In retrospect, I should have stuck to my principles. I sincerely believe that things couldn't possibly have turned out worse than they have even if John Kerry had won. The same kinds of people would have been pulling the strings, regardless. The result would be the same: bigger government, failing economy, and a nation in decline.

2004 is indeed an interesting question to ponder. Kerry being president wouldn't have given the Democrats the case to make that they did in 2006, basically running as the party of restoring conservatism to Washington (We want PAYGO and a balanced budget, Oh dear God the hypocrisy there!) Failure helps bring change so whether this failure would have happened under him or Obama, it would still have happened in my opinion.

Quote:

Now SDW2001 can compare me to Mark Levin (who is the furthest thing from a libertarian), call me "positively delusional" and sanctimonious, and tell me what I really think instead of listen to what I am saying and try to understand (all of which only serve to further alienate me from what I perceive to be a corrupt and broken Republican party). But at the end of the day, when I vote for the candidate I believe in my heart will do the best job as president - regardless of political party or ability to win, I will be able to look myself in the eye and know that I truly voted my conscience.

And when the country further deteriorates in spite of the reassurances that "this time it will be different", it will not be me who will be regretting my choice.

I can see where you are coming from for sure and it is easy for me to talk like this now because there is indeed a candidate or two there that I believe will get the nod and who can make a difference. I think as an example, Romney would seriously split the party and so I'll say upfront that all this talk is just that for now and the tables might be turned and I might be imploring you to advise me who to pull the switch for if there is a split due to a RINO like Romney getting the nod. You are correct that Bush badly damaged the conservative brand and we ought not damage it again. Our only disagreement is whether Gingrich would do that. His voting record suggests he wouldn't and his prior actions to me, show he wouldn't. I can't say that for Romney and there may not even be a big tent to join if that is indeed the case.

So take heart, it may be me on my knees begging you to let me into the split tent in the event that happens. Let's make sure to be cordial to each other then as well okay?

Yet this shows how you have to work within the system to change it sometimes. You have to register Republican to vote for Paul. Why not simply register as Libertarian and vote to help determine their presidential nominee? Ask why Paul himself sits within the big tent rather than leave it? Clearly he is strongly at odds with multiple positions within the Republican Party yet he feels he can affect more change from within than from outside.

I agree that you have to work within the system to change it sometimes. Sometimes you have to "reboot" the system or rebuild it from scratch, too.

In 2008 when Ron Paul lost in the primaries, he endorsed a third party candidate (Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party) and that's who I voted for (not ONLY because Paul endorsed him, mind you).

There is some speculation that if he loses the GOP primary he might consider running on a third-party ticket.

And, of course, he's run on the Libertarian ticket in the past. So really, he hasn't been limiting his options to try to change the system in a meaningful way. And neither am I.

Quote:

So take heart, it may be me on my knees begging you to let me into the split tent in the event that happens. Let's make sure to be cordial to each other then as well okay?

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, trumpt, and I know they're genuine. But from my perspective, it is the same reasoning that was used to justify voting for Bush. I believed it back then and voted for him. I held my nose and voted for him because that's what a good little Republican should do.

That might be why you voted for him, but that's not why I did.

Quote:

I stand before you a registered Republican (only because that's how my vote for Ron Paul in the primaries will count in my state) who is ashamed to be a registered Republican and ashamed that I compromised my own standards to vote for someone I didn't truly believe would be a good president.

You're asking the wrong question. It's who would be a BETTER president?

Quote:

In retrospect, I should have stuck to my principles. I sincerely believe that things couldn't possibly have turned out worse than they have even if John Kerry had won. The same kinds of people would have been pulling the strings, regardless. The result would be the same: bigger government, failing economy, and a nation in decline.

No way to tell, though I certainly don't blame Bush for most of it.

Quote:

Now SDW2001 can compare me to Mark Levin (who is the furthest thing from a libertarian), call me "positively delusional" and sanctimonious, and tell me what I really think instead of listen to what I am saying and try to understand (all of which only serve to further alienate me from what I perceive to be a corrupt and broken Republican party). But at the end of the day, when I vote for the candidate I believe in my heart will do the best job as president - regardless of political party or ability to win, I will be able to look myself in the eye and know that I truly voted my conscience.

And when the country further deteriorates in spite of the reassurances that "this time it will be different", it will not be me who will be regretting my choice.

Let me get this straight: Knowing that your vote will help ensure Obama is reelected, you're going to vote that way so your conscience is clear? Isn't that...sorry..utterly selfish?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I agree that you have to work within the system to change it sometimes. Sometimes you have to "reboot" the system or rebuild it from scratch, too.

But he'll never get the chance.

Quote:

In 2008 when Ron Paul lost in the primaries, he endorsed a third party candidate (Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party) and that's who I voted for (not ONLY because Paul endorsed him, mind you).

There is some speculation that if he loses the GOP primary he might consider running on a third-party ticket.

And, of course, he's run on the Libertarian ticket in the past. So really, he hasn't been limiting his options to try to change the system in a meaningful way. And neither am I.

Haha, fair enough.

Look, I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Paul will run as a third party candidate, be on the ballot in all states, and poll respectably enough to make one think he has a chance in hell. But I'd put money against that happening. And if it doesn't, you'll have to face facts about the choice to be made. Don't make me say "I told you so" when Obama gets sworn in the 2nd time.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Look, I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Paul will run as a third party candidate, be on the ballot in all states, and poll respectably enough to make one think he has a chance in hell. But I'd put money against that happening. And if it doesn't, you'll have to face facts about the choice to be made. Don't make me say "I told you so" when Obama gets sworn in the 2nd time.

The main point remains and that would be that even if some third party somehow managed to magically win the presidency, there won't be any support in Congress to move the agenda forward. People are human and have their human nature. Helping move Paul's agenda forward outside of the Republican Party helps destroy the Republican Party. Changing is different than destroying. You can change the party but once you are outside of it trying to move something forward then that says move this other party forward at the expense of the party to which you belong. Add to this people who have party rank, party seniority, who have worked within that system for years and I just don't see much happening.

Do I wish things could flip on a dime be it the country, party or whatever else needs to be addressed? Sure but you don't just say something like "Well we've got 40 million people on food stamps but we've decided to stop cutting checks tomorrow." Hell even the entire Federal budget process is delayed by a full year. It's sort of crazy how slow this stuff moves.

The main point remains and that would be that even if some third party somehow managed to magically win the presidency, there won't be any support in Congress to move the agenda forward.

Excellent point. The election is only the first impossible hurdle.

Quote:

People are human and have their human nature. Helping move Paul's agenda forward outside of the Republican Party helps destroy the Republican Party. Changing is different than destroying. You can change the party but once you are outside of it trying to move something forward then that says move this other party forward at the expense of the party to which you belong. Add to this people who have party rank, party seniority, who have worked within that system for years and I just don't see much happening.

Do I wish things could flip on a dime be it the country, party or whatever else needs to be addressed? Sure but you don't just say something like "Well we've got 40 million people on food stamps but we've decided to stop cutting checks tomorrow." Hell even the entire Federal budget process is delayed by a full year. It's sort of crazy how slow this stuff moves.

Agreed again. I want change, too. I support cutting a trillion dollars in the budget. I support restructuring our military bases and deployments overseas. I support less regulation in general. Bernanke must go. The Fed must be contained in its nearly unlimited power (perhaps the one area I support more regulation, so to speak). I support welfare program reforms, entitlement reform, etc. But this isn't going to get done without some real political know how. Ron Paul being principled and consistent isn't enough. The President has to work with Congress and manage/work to reform the bloated bureaucracy. Perhaps most overlooked, the President needs to project the right image to the world...to our allies and enemies. Ron Paul comes off as erratic at times, and that is not what we need.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You're asking the wrong question. It's who would be a BETTER president?

For me, the answer is the same. There are more than two political parties. The GOP was once a third party.

Quote:

Let me get this straight: Knowing that your vote will help ensure Obama is reelected, you're going to vote that way so your conscience is clear? Isn't that...sorry..utterly selfish?

I know, right? Who cares about morals and principle when we have a real chance to WIN and rub it in to those nasty Dems for 4 years? Meanwhile, the government continues to grow, and the nation continues to deteriorate.

You don't understand that I see no significant difference between Newt and Obama. None. Can you point one out to me? Nobody has been able to yet.

Quote:

But he'll never get the chance.

That's what the British said about those upstart American colonies. Crazies, the lot of them.

Quote:

Look, I hope I'm wrong. Maybe Paul will run as a third party candidate, be on the ballot in all states, and poll respectably enough to make one think he has a chance in hell. But I'd put money against that happening. And if it doesn't, you'll have to face facts about the choice to be made. Don't make me say "I told you so" when Obama gets sworn in the 2nd time.

You can say whatever you want. Again, to me there is no difference between Obama getting sworn in and Newt getting sworn in. The end result is the same: more government.

Do I wish things could flip on a dime be it the country, party or whatever else needs to be addressed? Sure but you don't just say something like "Well we've got 40 million people on food stamps but we've decided to stop cutting checks tomorrow." Hell even the entire Federal budget process is delayed by a full year. It's sort of crazy how slow this stuff moves.

Ron Paul has repeatedly said that people dependent on government programs will continue to be able to depend upon them. A promise is a promise. But he as also said that if the younger generation wants to opt out of such programs and keep more of their own money, they should be allowed to do so.

Some think that from day one in office he's going to try to dissolve the government completely. That's just not true.

For me, the answer is the same. There are more than two political parties. The GOP was once a third party.

No, because Ron Paul has no realistic chance of winning. He's not a legitimate choice because, in part, of the system we have. I don't like the two party system either, but me voting for Ron Paul is not going to change that. It's a choice between two people and will be for a long time.

Quote:

I know, right? Who cares about morals and principle when we have a real chance to WIN and rub it in to those nasty Dems for 4 years? Meanwhile, the government continues to grow, and the nation continues to deteriorate.

Yes, because that's exactly why I will support the GOP nominee, to "rub it in their faces." Come on, Jazz. That is a lazy argument you're making...you're better than that.

Quote:

You don't understand that I see no significant difference between Newt and Obama. None. Can you point one out to me? Nobody has been able to yet.

I understand perfectly. I just think you're wrong. In fact, I know you're wrong. This is in no way an endorsement of Gingrich, but:

Gingrich is totally different on foreign policy. He supports Israel, Obama does not. Gingrich will not go on an apology tour, Obama did just that.

Gingrich will not adjust troop levels overseas contrary to his top military advisor's opinions

Gingrich will have a real policy on Iran.

Gingrich supports energy independence including more domestic production

Gingrich understands the workings of Congress and how to lead on an issue like entitlment reform, budgeting, etc.

Gingrich supports far more limited goverment than does Obama. He opposes baseline budgeting.

Gingrich supports tax reform and regulatory reform that will make the nation more competitve.

That's what the British said about those upstart American colonies. Crazies, the lot of them.

That's a pretty ridiculous comparison.

Quote:

You can say whatever you want. Again, to me there is no difference between Obama getting sworn in and Newt getting sworn in. The end result is the same: more government.

That view is just so out of touch with reality, and I say that as someone who'd prefer a different candidate. Newt does not give us everything we want (which, by the way, is closer than you might think), but he's most definitely a step in right direction. As I said, it will come down to who will make a better President. And Ron Paul is not going to be one of those choices. You'd be better off if you just worked your tail off to get him the nomination.

What you're doing here is pretending the two party system doesn't exist, because you don't like it. That's going to get you a clear conscience and ability to watch Obama one TV for four more years.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I don't agree with Newt's agenda. I don't want congress to move his agenda forward. I prefer government deadlock to government expanding legislation being passed.

The issue though is that he has shown he can and will cut. So we are in disagreement here.

Quote:

Exactly.

Yes so how many people do you know that would slit their own throat to get 10-15% more of what they want? It's akin to saying you'd just be out of debt if you murdered your wife and claimed her life insurance. Most people don't do that. Certainly an entire political party won't commit suicide to help one man advance his agenda.

Quote:

Ron Paul has repeatedly said that people dependent on government programs will continue to be able to depend upon them. A promise is a promise. But he as also said that if the younger generation wants to opt out of such programs and keep more of their own money, they should be allowed to do so.

Some think that from day one in office he's going to try to dissolve the government completely. That's just not true.

Sorry but this is the sort of middling nonsense that you should be able to sense the bullshit within. There is no way to properly pay the retirement of the boomers with Social Security tax rates even at their present level. There is no way to keep that promise. It is impossible. The boomers promised themselves 60 trillion in benefits and left a nice 18-20 trillion dollar hole depending on who is calculating it and whether they are including the "bonds" the goverment owes itself.

So the generation after the boomers just has to pull 80 trillion out of their butt and then they might even try to find a little extra to pay for themselves and leave the system.

It isn't happening. It isn't even possible. It is part of why I know we are going to need someone to help to help in a paradoxical way. Before Steve Jobs returned to Apple he gave in interview in Wired Magazine. He was brutally honest. He declared that the Mac was dead and if he were at Apple he would milk it for all it was worth while moving on to the next great thing.

Clearly that has been what Apple has done but they couldn't be that forthright about it. You can't just say everything the company has previously been built on is now crap and let's just go get billions from these unproven or even non-existent markets. People would have their lost their minds if that had happend. The company would have gone bankrupt in a week. The man wasn't principled. He cut a deal with Microsoft and declared the Mac was back. He kept the desktop around and they've even managed to grow their market a bit but iOS and all devices associated with it were clearly the future.

What is true for the U.S. with the boomers is also true of the Western World with their Social Welfare systems. They are broke and unsustainable and the people benefitting from their are older and often exempting or creating a second tier for the new hires be they young, immigrant, muslim or whatever. They are already promising them to pay more to receive less. Now they want to tax them more on top of that often while they are semi- or under-employed. My mental short hand for this is they want to raise taxes and cut benefits on the kid living in their basement and on the man they pay to do their lawn and wash their car. It isn't a sustainable or workable model. It isn't even close.

The kid in the basement is making $15 an hr for the job Dad made $30 an hour for but the company needed to pay son less to help with their pension obligation for Dad who wants to retire at 60 years old. The kid in the basement also has to contribute some of that $15 an hr towards his 401k since he has no pension. Now the government will be coming back around and trying to renegotiate the Social Security Tax because Dad has two bad hips, knees and a clogged ticker and they can't afford for Medicare to pay for it when they are so deep in the hole to the tune of $20 trillion.

There isn't anyway to fix that generational transfer of wealth. It already amounts to generational theft. If Paul doesn't understand it or properly speak out or stand against it then he is worse than useless because it is the biggest problem out there.

Understand that I know Gingrich proposes much of the same thing. The difference is that I know Gingrich understands that it is unsustainable and that the true benefits being paid will likely need to be devalued via inflation. Someone claiming to bring us back to the gold standard clearly can't fudge in the corners that way. Someone claiming to stand only on principle can't allow such things.

The reality is the world is in a race to the bottom and bankruptcy and someone who can tell the looters little lies while stopping their theft will win the game. I'd love to just wander off to Galt's Gulch and live completely on principle but sadly it doesn't exist.

Gingrich is totally different on foreign policy. He supports Israel, Obama does not. Gingrich will not go on an apology tour, Obama did just that.

Newt would not take any steps to reign in our overseas empire and stop policing the world. Neither would Obama. No difference there. We shouldn't support Israel at all. They have 300 nukes and they can take care of themselves. It's time to end the entangling alliances Jefferson warned us about and start promoting friendship and free trade.

Quote:

Gingrich will not adjust troop levels overseas contrary to his top military advisor's opinions

Our overseas troop levels should be drastically reduced. Obama has not done so. No significant difference from Newt, there.

Quote:

Gingrich will have a real policy on Iran.

Newt would have the same policy on Iran that Obama has, he'd just be more clear and upfront about it than Obama is. They're chomping at the bit to attack Iran. They may have already started and just not told us about it yet.

Quote:

Gingrich supports energy independence including more domestic production

Okay, on this one you're partially right. Newt started the "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." campaign. However, he would not work to end government subsidies to big oil, which contribute to our problems.

Quote:

Gingrich understands the workings of Congress and how to lead on an issue like entitlment reform, budgeting, etc.

Obama has managed to get some pretty significant stuff through Congress - with and without bipartisan support. Obamacare? Patriot Act?

Quote:

Gingrich supports far more limited goverment than does Obama. He opposes baseline budgeting.

You cannot limit the government domestically without limiting it overseas, too. Newt will be a disaster on foreign policy and defense just as Obama has been, and that money hole would only get wider and deeper under his administration. And even domestically, Newt will trim around the edges here and there, but has no plans to balance the budget.

Quote:

Gingrich supports tax reform and regulatory reform that will make the nation more competitve.

Taxation is theft, and it is not the federal government's job to meddle in the free market. Newt will abolish or even audit the Federal Reserve, which is at the very heart of our financial problems. Until the Federal Reserve is dealt with, any "reforms" will be like putting band-aids on a gaping, infected wound.

But he's running for president now and Obamacare is hugely unpopular, so of course he's going to say all the right things and touch on all the right buzzwords to gain votes.

I think Newt would repeal Obamacare only to replace it with slightly different, yet still cumbersome government bureaucracy and red tape. The underlying problem would still not be addressed, which is too much government involvement and meddling in the healthcare system.

Quote:

No different than Obama?

He looks different. He says different things. He doesn't need a teleprompter. I don't know how his golf game is. But in nearly every way that counts, he is really no different than Obama. I don't trust either of them.

The issue though is that he has shown he can and will cut. So we are in disagreement here.

He'll tinker around the edges. Nothing significant. And he certainly won't abolish or even audit the Federal Reserve, which is at the heart of our financial problems.

Quote:

Yes so how many people do you know that would slit their own throat to get 10-15% more of what they want? It's akin to saying you'd just be out of debt if you murdered your wife and claimed her life insurance. Most people don't do that. Certainly an entire political party won't commit suicide to help one man advance his agenda.

I do like the use of analogy, but I'd appreciate it if you'd leave my wife out of them. That said, your analogy is flawed. The GOP was once a third party.

We seem to be rehashing the same arguments at this point. Your arguments are well thought out and well reasoned. You trust Newt. I don't. You're willing to overlook his past failures. I'm not. I have no faith in the man and I don't believe he will do what is necessary to bring this country back from the edge of that precipice. Therefore, he does not have my vote in the primary, nor in the general election if he makes it that far.

He calls it a "variation" of the individual mandate because he wants everyone to have a "range of choices". But the point is, he would use government to force you pay for one of those pre-approved choices.

He'll tinker around the edges. Nothing significant. And he certainly won't abolish or even audit the Federal Reserve, which is at the heart of our financial problems.

There isn't enough support to abolish the Fed at this stage. Reining it in would even be a major achievement. The best we could probably hope for is getting a better Fed Chairman the next round.

Quote:

I do like the use of analogy, but I'd appreciate it if you'd leave my wife out of them. That said, your analogy is flawed. The GOP was once a third party.

Obviously it is a rhetorical you and not a literal. The GOP became a third party and was born out of slavery. While debt in my mind certainly equals slavery, I don't think enough of the population will equate it that way and demand they be freed from their chains. Nor do I think they wish to give up their cars and big screens. I suspect an argument could be made along generational lines and you know I have in fact made it, but again I don't see Ron Paul demanding generational accounting and that the Boomers or anyone else stop these generational transfers of wealth.

Quote:

We seem to be rehashing the same arguments at this point. Your arguments are well thought out and well reasoned. You trust Newt. I don't. You're willing to overlook his past failures. I'm not. I have no faith in the man and I don't believe he will do what is necessary to bring this country back from the edge of that precipice. Therefore, he does not have my vote in the primary, nor in the general election if he makes it that far.

It goes well beyond that. It goes into dynamics of people and groups as well. One man cannot move an entire nation. One man cannot force Congress to do his bidding. There are no saviors out there. If a man can't lead a party, how can he lead a nation? If he can't convince a primary to give him power, how can he convince a nation?

It goes well beyond that. It goes into dynamics of people and groups as well. One man cannot move an entire nation. One man cannot force Congress to do his bidding. There are no saviors out there. If a man can't lead a party, how can he lead a nation? If he can't convince a primary to give him power, how can he convince a nation?

And Ron Paul's point is that the President has way too much power and influence in the first place. He's the only candidate I trust not to abuse the office.

No, because Ron Paul has no realistic chance of winning. He's not a legitimate choice because, in part, of the system we have. I don't like the two party system either, but me voting for Ron Paul is not going to change that. It's a choice between two people and will be for a long time.

Yes, because that's exactly why I will support the GOP nominee, to "rub it in their faces." Come on, Jazz. That is a lazy argument you're making...you're better than that.

I understand perfectly. I just think you're wrong. In fact, I know you're wrong. This is in no way an endorsement of Gingrich, but:

Gingrich is totally different on foreign policy. He supports Israel, Obama does not. Gingrich will not go on an apology tour, Obama did just that.

Gingrich will not adjust troop levels overseas contrary to his top military advisor's opinions

Gingrich will have a real policy on Iran.

Gingrich supports energy independence including more domestic production

Gingrich understands the workings of Congress and how to lead on an issue like entitlment reform, budgeting, etc.

Gingrich supports far more limited goverment than does Obama. He opposes baseline budgeting.

Gingrich supports tax reform and regulatory reform that will make the nation more competitve.

That view is just so out of touch with reality, and I say that as someone who'd prefer a different candidate. Newt does not give us everything we want (which, by the way, is closer than you might think), but he's most definitely a step in right direction. As I said, it will come down to who will make a better President. And Ron Paul is not going to be one of those choices. You'd be better off if you just worked your tail off to get him the nomination.

What you're doing here is pretending the two party system doesn't exist, because you don't like it. That's going to get you a clear conscience and ability to watch Obama one TV for four more years.

SDW Newt for president?

He represents everything that went wrong with the GOP in the 90's. He's Mr. Neocon. And really hasn't a snowball's chance in hell. So go Newt!

Like I said the best news for the Democrats is that the GOP can't come up with a good candidate.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Newt would not take any steps to reign in our overseas empire and stop policing the world. Neither would Obama. No difference there. We shouldn't support Israel at all. They have 300 nukes and they can take care of themselves. It's time to end the entangling alliances Jefferson warned us about and start promoting friendship and free trade.

Now you're moving the goalposts again! You said there was no difference. There is a clear difference on many points. You can't call them the same because you see a similarity on one point.

Quote:

Our overseas troop levels should be drastically reduced. Obama has not done so. No significant difference from Newt, there.

Where, when and why? I disagree we should reduce overseas troops for the sake of doing so.

Quote:

Newt would have the same policy on Iran that Obama has, he'd just be more clear and upfront about it than Obama is. They're chomping at the bit to attack Iran. They may have already started and just not told us about it yet.

Newt would have already attacked, or at least imposed more serious sanctions.

Quote:

Okay, on this one you're partially right. Newt started the "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." campaign. However, he would not work to end government subsidies to big oil, which contribute to our problems.

I don't know that they do contribute to the problems we're facing, but I agree with eliminating them.

Quote:

Obama has managed to get some pretty significant stuff through Congress - with and without bipartisan support. Obamacare? Patriot Act?

Yes, until the Congress was divided. And even previously, he didn't get what he wanted...he got the worst of all worlds...and it barely passed.

Quote:

You cannot limit the government domestically without limiting it overseas, too. Newt will be a disaster on foreign policy and defense just as Obama has been, and that money hole would only get wider and deeper under his administration. And even domestically, Newt will trim around the edges here and there, but has no plans to balance the budget.

That's not what he claims. That's not what his track record shows.

Quote:

Taxation is theft, and it is not the federal government's job to meddle in the free market. Newt will abolish or even audit the Federal Reserve, which is at the very heart of our financial problems. Until the Federal Reserve is dealt with, any "reforms" will be like putting band-aids on a gaping, infected wound.

No one will abolish the Fed. Even Ron Paul. Get real.

Quote:

His plan looks somewhat similar to Ron Paul's and I could support such a plan...if I trusted Newt.

But he's running for president now and Obamacare is hugely unpopular, so of course he's going to say all the right things and touch on all the right buzzwords to gain votes.

He repudiated his position on mandates quite some time ago. Even if not, his plan was and is not the same as Obama's.

Quote:

I think Newt would repeal Obamacare only to replace it with slightly different, yet still cumbersome government bureaucracy and red tape. The underlying problem would still not be addressed, which is too much government involvement and meddling in the healthcare system.

I'll grant that might be true.

Quote:

He looks different. He says different things. He doesn't need a teleprompter. I don't know how his golf game is. But in nearly every way that counts, he is really no different than Obama. I don't trust either of them.

But again, that's just not true. The real issue for you is that....he's not Ron Paul. He doesn't want to pull all the troops home, end the fed, end medicare and medicaid, end social security, deregulate everything or commit the armed forces except in case of self-defense and only with a declaration of war. Instead, he wants to do some of those things to a certain level. But what you're saying is you'd much rather have Obama. That's what I just don't understand. Again, I'm not a Gingrich supporter, but I'd take him over Obama. Hell, I'd take Hillary Clinton over Obama. I'd take Donald Trump over Obama. They are not great options, but they are better when compared to what we have.

What it really comes down to is that I don't understand what you hope accomplish by voting for Paul as a third party candidate. You're smart enough to know that there is almost no chance he can win. You're smart enough to know that if enough people do this, it will sap the GOP candidate of votes and likely deliver the election to Obama. Are you really telling me you're willing to have another Obama term so you can say you "stuck to your principles?" Really?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What it really comes down to is that I don't understand what you hope accomplish by voting for Paul as a third party candidate. You're smart enough to know that there is almost no chance he can win. You're smart enough to know that if enough people do this, it will sap the GOP candidate of votes and likely deliver the election to Obama. Are you really telling me you're willing to have another Obama term so you can say you "stuck to your principles?" Really?

In all the ways that really matter to me, I don't believe Newt or any other establishment GOP candidate's policies will result in less government or even get us going in that direction. In that sense, they are no different from Obama because the end result is the same: more government.

An Obama term would be no different from a Gingrich term or a Romney term because the result would be the same: more government.

That is why I cannot and will not vote for them.

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is still voting for evil and I will not do it.

At least with Ron Paul I know he would veto every unconstitutional bill that came across his desk. I know he would appoint judges that understand the proper role of government and the constitution - such as Andrew Napolitano.

In all the ways that really matter to me, I don't believe Newt or any other establishment GOP candidate's policies will result in less government or even get us going in that direction. In that sense, they are no different from Obama because the end result is the same: more government.

An Obama term would be no different from a Gingrich term or a Romney term because the result would be the same: more government.

So now we're back to claiming that Romney/Gingrich are no different than Obama because they haven't proposed cutting as much as Ron Paul has. We're back to claiming there is no difference that matters. Let me ask you, then:

--Is capping government spending as a percentage of GDP different? Does it matter?
--Is replacing the Fed chairman and auditing it different? Does it matter?
--Is getting rid of Obamacare different? Does it matter?
--Is replacing Obama with someone that has chief executive and business experience different? Does it matter?
--Is restoring economic growth different? Does it matter?
--Is representing America as Head of State with dignity and strength different? Does it matter?
--Is doing away with class warfare rhetoric different? Does it matter?
--Is entitlement reform different? Does it matter?

What you're really saying is that no, none of these things matter. Correct? Let me ask another question: Do you think Ron Paul has any realistic chance of winning as a third party candidate?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

So now we're back to claiming that Romney/Gingrich are no different than Obama because they haven't proposed cutting as much as Ron Paul has. We're back to claiming there is no difference that matters. Let me ask you, then:

--Is capping government spending as a percentage of GDP different? Does it matter?
--Is replacing the Fed chairman and auditing it different? Does it matter?
--Is getting rid of Obamacare different? Does it matter?
--Is replacing Obama with someone that has chief executive and business experience different? Does it matter?
--Is restoring economic growth different? Does it matter?
--Is representing America as Head of State with dignity and strength different? Does it matter?
--Is doing away with class warfare rhetoric different? Does it matter?
--Is entitlement reform different? Does it matter?

Do I have to keep repeating myself? The end result under an establishment GOP candidate and Obama is still the same: more government.

The result may be the same, in spite of Ron Paul's best efforts, but he's going to try a heck of a lot harder than anyone else.

Quote:

What you're really saying is that no, none of these things matter. Correct?

Voting for someone because he's "not Obama" isn't good enough. Obama was elected because he's "not Bush". Witness the result.

Quote:

Let me ask another question: Do you think Ron Paul has any realistic chance of winning as a third party candidate?

Under the right circumstances, yes. If the establishment wing of the GOP puts up a candidate like Newt, it will drive more people away from the party. The same thing happened to me in 2008 when they picked McCain over Romney. Romney was my guy, at the time. I started looking into third parties and libertarianism when McCain won the primary after some blatant political shenanigans within the GOP.

If Ron Paul, as a third party candidate, got adequate face time, he'd be able to clearly and effectively set himself apart from the other two as the truly conservative, small-government candidate.

Of course, he has not indicated he'd run on a third party ticket if he loses the GOP primary, so this is all speculation.

But I think even a third party candidate who gets Ron Paul's endorsement might stand a chance under the right circumstances.

Do I have to keep repeating myself? The end result under an establishment GOP candidate and Obama is still the same: more government.

The result may be the same, in spite of Ron Paul's best efforts, but he's going to try a heck of a lot harder than anyone else.

You keep repeating something that is demonstrably false.

Quote:

Voting for someone because he's "not Obama" isn't good enough. Obama was elected because he's "not Bush". Witness the result.

Wait, aren't you voting for Ron Paul because he's not Gingrich and not Romney? No seriously...it's not a question of "good enough." It's a question of what there is. Bush was a better option than Kerry, and a better option than Gore. Clinton was a better option than Dole. Bush I was better than Clinton, but gee...a third party candidate delivered Clinton the election. It's a choice. That's all.

Quote:

Under the right circumstances, yes.If the establishment wing of the GOP puts up a candidate like Newt, it will drive more people away from the party. The same thing happened to me in 2008 when they picked McCain over Romney. Romney was my guy, at the time. I started looking into third parties and libertarianism when McCain won the primary after some blatant political shenanigans within the GOP.

No way. If Gingrich gets the nomination, the GOP base will unite around him. He'll tap into the Tea Party folks and get the support of establishment Republicans who will vote almost anyone over Obama. And then there will be Ron Paul, who will take just enough of the people that have been "pushed away" to hand Obama his second term. This is Ross Perot all over again.

Quote:

If Ron Paul, as a third party candidate, got adequate face time, he'd be able to clearly and effectively set himself apart from the other two as the truly conservative, small-government candidate.

No way he'll get equal face time. Almost impossible given the money advantage of both parties and the corporate media.

Quote:

Of course, he has not indicated he'd run on a third party ticket if he loses the GOP primary, so this is all speculation.

I honestly hope for our country's sake that he doesn't run. As much as I disagree with him on certain issues, I would vote for him if he got the GOP nomination.

Quote:

But I think even a third party candidate who gets Ron Paul's endorsement might stand a chance under the right circumstances.

Virtually a certainty that will not happen (stand a chance).

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You're using the same rationalization that got Bush elected. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Quote:

Wait, aren't you voting for Ron Paul because he's not Gingrich and not Romney? No seriously...it's not a question of "good enough." It's a question of what there is. Bush was a better option than Kerry, and a better option than Gore. Clinton was a better option than Dole. Bush I was better than Clinton, but gee...a third party candidate delivered Clinton the election. It's a choice. That's all.

No, I'm voting for Ron Paul because I believe he would be the best candidate for president. Ron Paul isn't running as "not Obama". The establishment Republicans are.

You know, I've been able to have some good (heated at times, but good) conversations with trumpt and SDW lately and, even though we disagree on many points, we're able to actually exchange ideas and (hopefully) learn a thing or two from one another.

I would love to be able to have such conversations with others in PO, but it seems that there are some who can't string two sentences together without using profanity, ad-hominem attacks, and other such nonsense.

I just read about the "poor kids in school" need to do "janitorial jobs" to "show up on Monday" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing because this is a typical impression or interpretation of what people know of Newt now. And this was in an Australian paper under World News, meaning it was probably a generic syndicated article travelling all around the newswires.

So, pretty much harakiri on Newt's part. Colossally idiotic.

Edit: Yes I'm slow on the uptake, I'm only now catching up with events of the past week after being bashed over the head every day by the media about the Eurozone bringing about the end of the world.

You know, I've been able to have some good (heated at times, but good) conversations with trumpt and SDW lately and, even though we disagree on many points, we're able to actually exchange ideas and (hopefully) learn a thing or two from one another.

I would love to be able to have such conversations with others in PO, but it seems that there are some who can't string two sentences together without using profanity, ad-hominem attacks, and other such nonsense.

Really, it's getting old.

I'm ready to engage when you are. Until then...

I'm still here! Just actually earning income now after a few months moving to a new city, so not as free as I used to be.

But I do like talking with you and a few others on AppleInsider PO. Maybe because I personally haven't been attacked as such, or not recently anyways.

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, trumpt, and I know they're genuine. But from my perspective, it is the same reasoning that was used to justify voting for Bush. I believed it back then and voted for him. I held my nose and voted for him because that's what a good little Republican should do.

I stand before you a registered Republican (only because that's how my vote for Ron Paul in the primaries will count in my state) who is ashamed to be a registered Republican and ashamed that I compromised my own standards to vote for someone I didn't truly believe would be a good president.

In retrospect, I should have stuck to my principles. I sincerely believe that things couldn't possibly have turned out worse than they have even if John Kerry had won. The same kinds of people would have been pulling the strings, regardless. The result would be the same: bigger government, failing economy, and a nation in decline.

Now SDW2001 can compare me to Mark Levin (who is the furthest thing from a libertarian), call me "positively delusional" and sanctimonious, and tell me what I really think instead of listen to what I am saying and try to understand (all of which only serve to further alienate me from what I perceive to be a corrupt and broken Republican party). But at the end of the day, when I vote for the candidate I believe in my heart will do the best job as president - regardless of political party or ability to win, I will be able to look myself in the eye and know that I truly voted my conscience.

And when the country further deteriorates in spite of the reassurances that "this time it will be different", it will not be me who will be regretting my choice.

You wonderful Republicans are like Cain and Abel. Always destroying what is good for the middle class and poor.Selfish people and not caring at all except big corporations and banks and Wall Street.

Gingrich thinks government should have a hand in creating a "pathway to work" so "people get in the work habit and learn the skills to be successful."

Bravo for Newt. Politicians don't usually speak this way, which is why so many of them have mastered the art of talking for hours without saying anything of importance. I can't imagine Mitt Romney saying these things; he's too busy telling people what they want to hear to tell them what they need to hear. This subject is as important as they come, and Gingrich deserves credit for kicking off the discussion, especially since he was sure to be pummeled for stating the obvious.

Here's the obvious: Americans have lost their work ethic, and some never had one to lose. They grow up -- or put more precisely, they're raised -- thinking of so many jobs as beneath them that they wake up one day not knowing how to do any job.

Gingrich was right on the money. But I would go further than he did. This isn't just a problem for black Americans; it's a problem for all Americans. In fact, as someone who speaks to groups all over the country and who spends a fair amount of time visiting high schools and colleges, I worry less about students from poor families who lack resources and opportunities than I do about those from the upper-middle class who lack passion and purpose.

Poor kids often have a fire in their belly, a desire to improve their lot and help their parents. Upper-middle class kids can be harder to motivate, especially if they've never been taught to work by their parents.

The part where I'd go further is to note that most poor kids have no fire in their belly at this stage due to the nature of government assistance. As a teacher I have no problem teaching someone who is ignorant of how to do something. I have major problems teaching people who find no fault with their ignorance since it creates no shortcomings in their lives. People don't feel the desire to fix that which they can't see is broken and it isn't broken if there is no consequence or problems associated with that attribute.

So we have kids who chronically wander in late. They get fed two meals a day. They largely gossip and distract themselves and often others. They never bring homework, minimally attempt the classwork and even with incentives, do not feel any need to improve their lot. They are years behind at times but blissfully happy becaue that has no consequence in their lives. This percentage of kids grows larger every year.

Democrats are like Cain, envious of others and filled with murderous rage.

Republicans are like Abel, though they've caught on and are now packing heat for self-defense.

On the subject of Gingrich, it's funny how Pelosi totally sabotaged the White House a couple of days ago.

The WH was doing everything it could to build up Gingrich, and Pelosi opens her mouth about past ethical investigations that completely undid the entire 'elevate Gingrich' project the Democratic spinmeisters were working on.

You're using the same rationalization that got Bush elected. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

We're not talking about Bush. If you'd like to do that, fine. But for now, you're saying that there will be no difference in result between Obama and Gingrich/Romney. That is totally false.

Quote:

No, I'm voting for Ron Paul because I believe he would be the best candidate for president. Ron Paul isn't running as "not Obama". The establishment Republicans are.

And you should...if he's the nominee or if you're voting in a primary. You should absolutely vote for him in those cases. In that case our debate would at least make sense. You'd be talking about principle and I'd be talking about nominating someone more electable. At least there are two sides to that issue.

But we're not talking about that situation. We're talking about you voting for Ron Paul as a third party candidate, despite your intense dislike of the current President, and despite the fact that you KNOW your candidate cannot win. It practically gives new meaning to "cognitive dissonance."

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

There is no one more reviled in Washington than Newt. If anyone believes he is part of the establishment, he or she is mistaken. In fact, it would not be a terribly great stretch to say some in the Republican wing of the governing class would prefer to see Obama re-elected than Newt in the Oval Office. However, the vast majority of this class are now in a panic as the preordained choice, Mitt Romney, is truly threatened by the rabble in flyover country constantly looking for anyone but Romney. These people have settled, so it seems, on Gingrich. The increasing volume of commentary of the Beltway insiders and attendant vitriol toward Newt has become a near-hysterical tidal wave rehashing and embellishing Newt's supposed failings and personal "baggage."

Much of this stems from his days as House minority leader and later speaker, when he ruffled many feathers as his, at times, abrasive and assertive personality was on full display. Newt was relentless, with a near-imperious and dictatorial demeanor, in getting many of his and other conservative ideas into law, and he never failed to expound on whatever came to the forefront of his mind

I want someone relentless in moving the needle back towards sanity.

Quote:

This election is no longer about Republicans vs. Democrats, but about the Governing Class vs. the rest of the country. The Republican base has been sold down the river every election cycle since 1988. They have, nontheless, supported whoever was nominated for president. The Bushes turned out to be simply enablers of Democratic economic and spending policies, at best slowing down but never reversing the course that has put the country today on the precipice of failure. The last GOP nominee was unwilling to take on his opponent in a no-holds-barred manner, while the Democrats continuously and successfully demeaned and slandered him. In either case, there was never any passion or commitment to conservative principles these nominees claimed to have during the primary process.

The Republican failures of the past 23 years culminated in the election of Barack Obama in 2008 and a dramatic acceleration toward national insolvency and societal upheaval.

The people who care about America are no longer willing to just settle for a candidate who is a mirror-image of all those who have been chosen since 1988. They want someone who is unafraid, willing to take the blows and deliver them with equal force, with a record of actual accomplishments and the tenacity so vital to reversing the course the nation is presently on. Barack Obama will have the better part of a billion dollars at his disposal to wage a scorched-earth campaign and to do or say anything to win re-election; the rank and file of the conservative movement know this and understand the need for a brawler to take on Obama's glass jaw.Is Newt the ideal candidate? No. But of all those now on stage, he alone has exhibited those essential traits. That is why, despite the best efforts of the media and the Democratic and Republican establishment, Newt is surging in the polls. I believe that Newt, or any other non-Romney candidate chosen, can win against Obama, who will be forced to defend his record by someone who will be unafraid to highlight it as well as make an issue of his character flaws and radical ideological make-up. It is not in Romney's or the Republican establishment's mindset to take off the gloves in the general election.

The point is made so well there. The gloves need to come off. We need someone who will not passively defend conservative ideas and start from the presupposition given in the media that it is a wrong position and just try to work back from that. We need someone who can dismiss and deride the questions that presume an answer and replace them with a real agenda perfectly articulated and who will be on offense rather than defense.

When asked about how he intended to win the general election Gingrich said he expected Obama to have $1 billion to spend, but that he would counter that by challenging Obama to a series of seven Lincoln Douglas-style un-moderated debates, and he'll say yes. There are two reasons: The first is his ego. Can you imagine him looking in the mirror? Graduate from Columbia, Harvard Law, and editor of the Law Review. How is he going to say that he's afraid to be on the same podium as a West Georgia College teacher? Plus, if he says no Im going to say the White House is now my scheduler and wherever he goes I will show-up within four hours to take apart whatever he said, thats how Lincoln got Douglas to debate.

Yes toward the bolded part times one million please! Instead of letting this guy dance around while the media shields him and then picks apart the speeches or reading list, or campaign stops of his opponent, take it straight to his chest. (Last cycle they were critiquing the fact Palin and McCain spoke to...GASP....bikers.)

Quote:

Gingrich then went on to briefly outline his plan for winning the Republican nomination and the Presidency through a positive campaign focused on selling conservative ideas such as radically reducing the size of the federal establishment by governing according to the precepts of the Tenth Amendment and balancing the budget and paying down the debt to encourage job creation.

The Speaker then went on to outline the four parts of his 21st Century Contract with America: A set of legislative proposals to shift America back to job creation, prosperity, freedom, and safety; A "Day One Plan" of Executive Orders to be signed on inauguration day to immediately transform the way the executive branch works; A training program for the transition teams and the appointees who will lead the shift back to Constitutional, limited government; and, a system of citizen involvement to help us sustain grassroots support for change and help implement the change through 2021.

This is the guy not just with a plan but a proven desire to take that plan out there, explain it and defend it against all comers and in addition to that, to force the competing ideas to be explained as well.

This won't be the type of candidate that lets someone win on nonsense like HOPE and CHANGE.

The point is made so well there. The gloves need to come off. We need someone who will not passively defend conservative ideas and start from the presupposition given in the media that it is a wrong position and just try to work back from that. We need someone who can dismiss and deride the questions that presume an answer and replace them with a real agenda perfectly articulated and who will be on offense rather than defense.

Yes toward the bolded part times one million please! Instead of letting this guy dance around while the media shields him and then picks apart the speeches or reading list, or campaign stops of his opponent, take it straight to his chest. (Last cycle they were critiquing the fact Palin and McCain spoke to...GASP....bikers.)

This is the guy not just with a plan but a proven desire to take that plan out there, explain it and defend it against all comers and in addition to that, to force the competing ideas to be explained as well.

This won't be the type of candidate that lets someone win on nonsense like HOPE and CHANGE.

He's definitely more substantive and conservative than jazz gives him credit for. I still think Romney is nearly as good on many of these issues, and would better represent us around the world. And as smart as Newt is, Romney is better debater and speaker. He also doesn't have the skeletons that Newt does. In my opinion Romney is still going to be the nominee.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.